Is Ellen Degeneres LA’s Michael Vick?

So, Ellen adopted a small dog from Mutts and Moms, a Pasadena rescue group. According to Ellen, Iggy, the dog, didn’t get along with her cats, so she gave the dog to her hairstylist. The rescue agency found out, and claimed that this broke the terms of the adoption contract, and removed the dog from its new home.

Apparently, the contract said that once you adopt a dog from them, you can’t “unilaterally” decide to give it away. And the rescue group doesn’t believe the new home would be fit for the small dog (a Brussels Griffon mix terrier) because children under the age of 14 live there.

Says a spokesman for Mutts and Moms co-owner Marina Batkis:

“She doesn’t think this is the type of family that should have the dog. She is adamant that she is not going to be bullied around by the Ellen DeGenereses of the world … They are using their power, position and wealth to try to get what it is they want.” [Emphasis mine.]

And what they want? For a Brussels Griffon mix terrier to be left in a good home. Can someone please stop the Ellen Degenereseses of this world and their bullying ways?

19 Replies to “Is Ellen Degeneres LA’s Michael Vick?”

While I do believe that the rescue agency owner is on a massive power trip–I saw an interview with another of her clients who had her dog taken back after they drove by and saw her walking the dog without a leash–i also think Ellen’s reaction on her show today was a massive overreaction.

Everyone in that audience was certain that Ellen’s mother must have died until she finally let loose with her sobbing, gasping story of how “a family had a dog for 2 weeks and it got taken back.” This is hardly the stuff of Greek tragedies.

I think Ellen is trying to use her soapbox in a personal dispute, the likes of which we all get into throughout our lives. It is a little unfair to bring down the weight of the nation’s media on this little group over this dispute. I’d want to tell her to go pound sand, too. But at some point, I’d come to my senses and make use of this media attention to get huge donations and resources to rescue hundreds more dogs.

That is the policy at every animal rescue I know of. If the animal ever needs to leave your home, you return it to the rescue. I knew someone who had to find a new home for her dog and called the rescue she’d adopted the dog from – years earlier in another state – and they found someone to pick the dog up and drive her across several states so they could find another suitable home for her.

I am ALL FOR finding dogs a good home, and I think it is very sad that this family had bonded with the dog only to lose it. But seriously, that is always the policy. It applies to celebrities too, no matter how well-meaning they may be.

I understand the need for the language to be in the contract, but this sounds like they’re enforcing a contract out of spite and not engaging in common sense.

They’re a rescue group trying to make sure dogs are in good homes. From what I’ve read, they’re more obsessed with the fact that a celebrity is involved than whether or not the dog is in a good home. And according to them, the only reason its not in a good home is because there are children under the age of 14.

There is a gross overpopulation of unwanted dogs and cats in this country (and the world). M&M handled this very poorly, and in my opinion are now acting out of stubbornness and fear of humiliation of being “wrong) that they think they would endure if they gave the dog back. They can’t really complain about any public backlash as it was THEM who initially threatened to go to the media. You can bet their business will suffer severely for this, which is really sad. Right now I am most sad for the poor dog.

If you are wanting to show your support for Ellen, the kids and family, and the dog, please check out this online petition (and please pass the link to the petition on):

I love Ellen but I agree with the earlier commenter who feels she’s just sobbing for sympathy from her soapbox. Whether or not the rescue organization is being too strict, with all due respect to those who want to foist petitions upon us it comes off that Ellen is the one who handled the situation poorly and M&M is now being made out by her to be the bad guy, when in fact all they want is to make sure the dog is properly placed by following the rules. Ellen should resolve this off-camera.

The group Mutts and Moms, who either took down their site or had it taken down, (here’s a cached copy) get their animals from the LA pound and then try to place them in homes. Their reasoning for taking back this puppy via cops is short sighted, and they’ve no doubt done more damage to their own reputation than they imagine. Rules in a contract can be pointed out, challenged, and hopefully a reasonable outcome can be attained. Storming the fort for a puppy? They deserve no sympathy. Sounds like these “animal lovers” are part of that crazy bunch that is so common in the animal welfare circles, often losing sight of reality.

Now, I think the upshot is that by digging their heels in (for a while) and getting media attention around this, the adoption agency is going to end up getting a lot of positive attention.

I’m guessing they will eventually give the dog back, Ellen will be grateful and want to make nice, Ellen will invite the pet adoption agency on the show to prove that the air is cleared; and then everyone is happy. Plus the adoption agency gets a lot of good media attention, in the end.

I’m not saying this whole thing isn’t f-ed up and a mess, but I’m thinking that M&M doesn’t want to have that dog placed in an environment they dind’t control, only to have the family turn around and sue them (not Ellen) should the dog not work out.

I hope that a discrimination suit by all under 14 year old is filed against these Mutts who are running this agency. A good home is a good home . Whats to say that the parents havent raised their young children to treat the animals better then an adult would. Where did this erroneous rule of 14 year olds and older come from? Did they really conduct any studies to determine abuse in animals in households and actually find that the abuse was greater in homes where children under 14 lived? Please, yes Ellen was upset and expressed it. She probably feels horrible for the animal and a little ashamed she didnt read all the fine print. At the end of the day this agency claims to have care for this animal, then they should conduct an interview with this family to see if they qualify. Qualifying, interesting, is this organization attempting to cater to the very same people they now claim are bullying them? If the dog is safe, well cared for and the family can provide the training, quardianship and financial responsibilities that go with owning a pet, LET THEM KEEP IT . What are they really accomplishing out of all of this?! PUBLICITY!!! By the way, what qualifies these gals to pick and choose who adopts these animals anyway?

I don’t necessarily think that the Mutts and Mom’s is the “bad guy” the truth is there isn’t one. However, usually when a contract has such a rule it is because they do not want the dog to end up in a shelter where they could be killed or in a dogfighting ring etc. etc.

However, that was not the case here. I do have a hunch that the shelter organization is being somewhat spiteful and giving themselves a pat on the back for standing up to a celebrity. It isn’t acting in the best interest of the animal to be shuffled around from home to home.

Also, I think they failed to look at the greater ramifications of their actions. How many potential dog owners will refuse to adopt from shelters or rescue groups now for fear of something like this happening? Instead, many people will probably turn to pet stores (which often encourage puppy mills)or buy from breeders which may or may not be honest.

So, Mutts and Moms may have one this little battle but it doesn’t gain them any ground in the larger battle which is finding homes for the many unwanted and abandoned dogs.